News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by civilian on Friday January 30, 2015 @04:16PM (#8974545)
The amount of commercials required to watch a game of football is intrinsically bad. The tax exempt status of the NFL is intrinsically bad.
Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by metellus on Friday January 30, 2015 @04:27PM (#8974608)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/nflexempt.asp

Specifically, "Claims that the NFL is using a tax exemption to avoid paying the tax due on these revenues are simply misinformed. The confusion arises from the fact that there is one small part of the NFL, unrelated to all this business activity, that is tax-exempt: the NFL League Office. The league office is the administrative and organizational arm of the NFL and does things like write the rules of the game, hire referees, run the college draft, negotiate the collective bargaining agreement with the players, conduct player safety research, and run youth football programs."

Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by kyllo on Friday January 30, 2015 @04:53PM (#8974711)
The fact that NFL teams get taxpayers to foot the bill for new stadium construction and then the team retains the facility as private property, now that is what I have a problem with. Those facilities are bought with public money and should be public parks.
Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by parineum on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:57PM (#8975048)
I generally agree with the principal you present but you have to acknowledge that the government (and therefore, theoretically, tax payers) gain value through the stadiums presence in the community. More directly through sales tax and tourism but possibly other less direct means like property values and property taxes.

Furthermore, if that's what people want to be done with their tax money, that's their business. If enough people felt the way you do, the story would be different. See the San Diego Chargers situation for example. They may end up relocating because of lack of political backing on building a new stadium.

Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by XorNot on Friday January 30, 2015 @06:27PM (#8975164)
We only establish or change what "people" want done with their tax money by public discourse on whether we think it's a good idea. That something is done by the government is hardly a reason to not question it.
Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by onewaystreet on Friday January 30, 2015 @08:52PM (#8975576)
The decision to construct a new stadium is often done through a referendum, so taxpayers do get a say.
Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by civilian on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:49PM (#8975005)
Ahhhh, owned by snoped. I feel dumb.

But kyllo has another good taxy point.

Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by omegaham on Friday January 30, 2015 @07:12PM (#8975324)
Chinese stream. No commercials. It is, by far, the greatest thing that has happened to football.
Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by teddyh on Monday February 02, 2015 @07:28AM (#8983836)
Why do the Chinese streams exist? The Chinese streams exist because Chinese people are interested in watching the games. Why are they interested? Because they are betting money on the games. Why are they doing that? Because their local teams and sport are susceptible to corruption. The obvious result? Chinese organized crime are sending people to influence these teams as well, causing corruption.

So, the Chinese streams may seem like a good thing, but they are a symptom of a bad thing.

Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by nwienert on Friday January 30, 2015 @04:38PM (#8974645)
But you being a snob about it to other people is also intrinsically bad. Disliking other peoples hobbies that cause no harm to others is intrinsically bad.

Intrinsically bad.

Re:Cultivated Disinterest in Professional Sports by dragonwriter on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:05PM (#8974774)
> Disliking other peoples hobbies that cause no harm to others is intrinsically bad.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that that generality is true, I'm not sure how it applies to the actual issue here; particularly, I'm not sure how hobbies that are subsidized at public expense -- and therefore at the expense of competing public priorities -- can be said to "cause no harm to others".